The joys of life without God

Sorry, but WTF?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's my latest angle

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do not believe in anything more than you, rather I believe in one thing less than you. I do not believe in 'coincidence'. You do.

"Coincidence literally describes two or more events or entities occupying the same point in space or time, but colloquially means two or more events or entities possessing unexpected parallels, such as thinking about someone and then receiving an unexpected phone call from that person, when it is clear that there is no ordinary causal connection.

The index of coincidence can be used to analyze whether two events are related. A coincidence does not prove a relationship, but related events may be expected to have a higher index of coincidence. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. The odds that two people share a birthday, for example, reaches 50% with a group of just 22 [1] (see the Birthday paradox).

Remarkable coincidences sometimes lead to claims of psychic phenomena or conspiracy theories. Some researchers (see Charles Fort and Carl Jung) have compiled thousands of accounts of coincidences and other anomalous phenomena."

obviously it is is the remarkable not the unremarkable that interests me and that which is NOT coincidence. It is just a convenient word, nothing more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cool! In a wierd, lame sort of way. But still cool!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I try
meanwhile

I'm trying to figure out how sterile neutrino's fit into the origin of life thing. any ideas?

 

bah this is the question to end all questions. Pants and shabbahhh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You mean as opposed to fertile neutrinos? I would say that sterile neutrinos would have very little to do with the origin of life. Unless these so-called sterile neutrinos are actually asexual budding entities. If an asexual "sterile" neutrino could bud off a baby neutrino then we'd have something. But this has not been shown in any conclusive way. The fertile neutrino, now, that's another story. Never been detected, but it could nicely explain the origin of life on earth and the universe. They would be able to penetrate deep into anything they encountered and thus spawn life almost anywhere.

Those are my ideas.

 

Modern science does not attempt to explain coincidences since they are merely events that seem arranged but were purely accidental.

Many things existed before the word that describes them did.

So, in your humble opinion, no event ever could have been accidental, every event that ever occured was pre-arranged by your "forces?"

 

bad analogy light. First, the headache medicines all have the same or at least very similar ingredients; they don't blatantly didagree on which ingredients should be used. Second, no headache medicine claims to be the ONLY one that works. while they may claim to be better, and they may emphasize certain unique qualities of their individual product which make theirs special and appealing to certain people, they do not deny that oteh rporducts work. If Christians were for example to say that the Jewish and the Muslims and the Hindus and all other religions were following the same God as them, but that they were jsut doing it in a different way that isn't as good as ours, then religion would be a lot more beleievable. But since they have contradictory claims and each states that it is the ONLY correct religion, their case is therefore weakened not only by teh atheist argumenet but by the argument of all the otehr religions as well. If teh theists were even somehat reasonable and reaaly wanted to achieve their goal of wiping out the thinkrs on the planet in order to brainwash everyone, they would unite, or at least pretend to unite and agree on just one fairy tale so that it gains more credibility.
Finally, i find it very ironic that you unintentionally compared religion to a drug, which i think is a very good representation for religion. It intoxicates the minds of the weak; it is addictive to the point where those addicted will do anything to appease their god, be it killing people or blowing up abortion clinics, and will be just as determined to infest others with their disease. But religion isnt even like a real medicine, it is a placebo. It works because the mind is a powerful thing and it can convince the body and the rational part of your brain that it is true when it is actually not. I think that the mind can do many things and is so amazing that it can actually trick itself.
Light, your second analogy was much better, about how religion is a drug. I thought maybe you had seen the truth for a second but i guess you made that analogy unintentionally. I really like it though if that counts for anything

 

James R

Ok then suppose they were a university drop out instead of a high school drop out - in other words is it sufficient to declare that something is false simply because many people have looked for it and not found it? And is this premise not even more shaky when one cannot establish the correct epistemology for such a search in the first place?

So in otherwords correct epistemology leads to ontology
The same holds true of theistic pursuit, hence not all theists "mature" in their development to become atheists

The same with any field of knowledge - the correct epsitemology

How do you propose to separate training from epsietmology?
How do you propose to seperate epistemology from ontology?


“ I can include the consciousness of god in the definition of the star as a more complex item of observation ”

If that's whats required for a star, what to speak of a crayon picture of a star. As for the requirement of intelligence to justify the stars existence, I guess I find it amazing that you cannot conceive of a crayon picture of a star without intelligence but are prepared to make that leap of faith with a star that has a composition and infrastructure countless billions of times more complex than a crayon picture - do you have any experience of anything that is composed of complex structures, or for that matter any structure, thats cause is not traced to consciousness (or a type of cause that has "mysterious" scientific foundations)

Instead it leads to causes that are "mysterious"

It is answering the question - do you think corrupted scientific epistemologies (like pseudo science for instance) establishes the proper foundations for science?

I thought I did - murder has its moral applications

God indicates the correct applications of morals - morals are not absolute, that is they change under time place and circumstance, but morals performed under the direction of god are absolute
I will give you an example so you won't think I am a suicide bomber
According to scripture, it is sinful for a king to not enforce the law (which may involve killing) - in other words he is forbidden to avoid confrontation at the right time, since the resulted effects of his peace would result in more violence (theives would attack and torment his citizens)
A priest, on the other hand is forbidden to fight

Both of them however, are required to cultivate a mood of surrender to god

Understanding the application of scripture requires knowledge to discriminate between a principle and detail (something both atheists and religious fanatics are famous for getting stumped on)

So by your own moral definitions you are not moral

Religion however has the notion that the universe is god's property - basically the problem with your attempts at morality (and the attempts of others like yourself) is that we (humans) are not potent enough to do anything (I think it was einstein who said something like "the intelligence that goes into solving our problems has to be greater than the intelligence that went into creating them) - its just like trying to nourish every leaf on a tree with a watering can - the intelligent option is that by watering the root all the leaves are nourished

- inotherwords the highest "morality" of religion is not charity, etc, but displaying the right attitude to god (worshipping god in a mood of love and surrender)

So of course to do that you have to have a clear notion of the source or rot, and that pursuit is the pursuit of theism (developing a clearer and clearer concept of god)

You are the one who said do unto others as you want them to do to you - doesn't that indicate an imbalance, the very fact that you have to "aim" for this ideal

To relegate religion to a more inferior status than what it is currently operating out of

Fossil record is just fossils - its not evidence but theory - at the very least it is not evidence that life evolved from matter

Where is the evidence that life evolved from matter?

So in other words to determine whether something is "scientific" it is sufficient to pass it through court?
What happens if the court had a different decision 50 years ago?
Or if they have a different decision in the next 50 years?
Inother words you are not establishing a very scientific definition of scientific.

Equally interesting how the idea of life coming from matter is atractive to atheists

In otherwords it seems to indicate a clash of values more than anything else

There are stacks of descriptions in scriptures such as

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.


- its quite a big topic and perhaps represents over 60% of the struggle in spiritual life

Fire was just an analogy - I didn't say discovering the objective nature of god is as easy as discovering the objective nature of fire - just like there is no argument about fire from persons who have understood fire, there is no argument about god from persons who have understod god - if there seems to be a lot of argument it probably indicates that persons are still struggling with the evidence that fire is smoke, fire is heat, fire is light, and arguably there might also be a few false epistemologies inthere to make it more interesting like fire is soft and fire is wet - so in such an environment isn't argument natural?

You can read the opening post here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085&page=8&pp=20

Does that automatically mean that others are exterminated?

Seperation of church and state is a god move if the church is not qualified - inother words its not a question of me forcing my ideas of having a church run state, its a matter of it being the natural alternative when people in general see the value in it - in otherwords it is arrived at through education instead of legislation - and of course, as history has proven, when a church becomes disqualified, it can legislate all it wants but it won't help them if the people are dissatisfied with them

Relegating to academia is a more subtle attack and more devastating - for instance in the communist era the gov't was reluctant to publicly brand underground religious movements as bad because they knew that the public would automatically assume they must be god if the gov't said they were bad -lol

If however religion is relegated to academia, that is it becomes sufficient to determine who is religious by dint of their scholarship of scripture as opposed to actually being a practioner, the whole thing becomes hollow since the field becomes bereft of actual practioners - as for this being unlikely to happen, it is already happening and has picked up tempo with the industrial revolution

 

you are winding me up, never mind

I just found this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030128075950.htm

"Neutrinos are invisible, uncharged, nearly massless particles that, unlike other kinds of radiation, speed through the universe unhindered by planets, stars, magnetic fields or entire galaxies. The particles are emitted by phenomena scientists believe can help them understand the origins of the universe. "


and this for your reference re 'sterile' neutrino's

"The possibility of sterile neutrinos — neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavor oscillation (see below) — is unaffected by these Z-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact supported by experimental data from LSND. The correspondence between the six - currently known - quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, provides additional evidence that there should be exactly three types. However, conclusive proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics."



They are the 'missing ingredient' of that I am sure.

I'll copy this to evolution thread.

 

Who's avoiding?

I've said if you want to examine the basis of how to perceive god go to the other thread where I deal with that subject specifically - do you expect to cut and paste it here for your leisure?

If you can't be bothered to enter the thread aren't you .....

.....a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

James R

And doesn't the epistemology become credible if it innvolves following in the footsteps of persons who have successfully applied the epistemology (which BTW actually innvolves avoiding all intoxicants rather than utilising them for special effects)

all of them involve consciousness however

On the contrary it is you who have conceived of such crayon drawings of stars that manifest without consciousness

.
and also

but are yet to give an example of one

Now lets see whether you can trace the causes of their existence to phenomena to something singular, or whether they are just relative causes - in other words lets see if you can actually determine the cause of these things or whether it ends up in mystery (remember I am asking you for an example of something of a complex structure that does not owe its existence to some cause that is not either mysterious or conscious, and thus you could use that for a extrapolative model for saying that a star is not designed by intelligence)

What causes weather patterns?

What causes them to form?

What causes them to form?

It could be a bit labourious to run with all these three so feel free to choose any one (preferably not the star one because you are trying to provide an example of something that could act as a model for the tentative suggestion that stars can form without intelligence)

So how does the idea of intelligence in the universe inhibit their investigations? Particularly since they have more to learn ...

The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause)

Why do atheists feel that things of complex structures can manifest themselves, when crayon pictures of the before mentioned structures cannot?

Then the theists argue that if there is intelligence in the universe there is purpose - in other words there is an inextricable link between design and purpose, and therefore understanding the purpose helps unlock the design, and understanding the design helps unlock the purpose - atheistic science however does not even begin to allow any movement in the direction of "How god did it?"

 

Looking Forward (watch yer step now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

”

The same is obvious to persons who actually study world religions - only atheists offer superficial arguments to the contrary

This is actually a view getting advocated at many world religion conventions -

I can only gather that you are not well informed in theism

perhaps not too well read either

I love to use it - I like to see people make a clod of themselves by advocating dead communist ideals

sure you don't mean MTV?

This is MTV right?

I gotta get ma blink blink bro

And you accuse religion of fairy tale philosophy? Are you sure that your mind hasn't convinced the rational part of your brain to say such things in the absence of evidence?

So does this special knowledge of the minds ability make a person immune from its imaginative powers - for instance how are you sure that you are not imagining that there is no god is not a sign of fallibility?

Nope you walked straight into it like dog stool

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

YOU are, that is blantanly obvious, as many are pointing out.

There was no explanation in that other thread either. Are you to support one vacuous claim with another?

I've already told you I've seen THAT thread, there is nothing that explains the process you've claimed in THIS thread. Hence, I am a person waiting for you to explain said process, like most others here.

If I'm intolerant, it's not to people, it is to their religious ideologies. And since I, and many others here, have already objectively considered those ideologies time and again, there is no prejudice.

And since you've yet to offer your explanation of the process you claim, then one cannot be viewed as prejudice to that which doesn't exist.

Again, you are avoiding/evading.

 

exactly what about my comment suggests that i know nothing of theism? The part that they have conrtardictory claims and each claims to be the only correct view? I happened to be one of teh unfrotunate kids who was indoctrinated into christianity for most of my youth, luckily i broke free from it. One of the things i remeber was a quote written in huge letters on the wall of teh church

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

Does it say "People can come to the father throught me or any other religious figure"? NO. It says only Jesus is teh way to teh father (the alleged god taht you claim all religions agree on). Taken from your own book (and teh "correct" half of it for taht matter). And your rebuttal....

 

And Light, what is with teh MTV discussion. How is taht relevant at all. When was the last time someone killed someone in teh name of MTV? I try to bring up relevant points liek this and all you can do is avoid them and talk about "blink blink" which i dont even know what that is (maybe "bling bling" as in tacky pompous jewelry? if so i dont see how that is relevant at all other tahn some kind of silly comment to distract people from the relaity taht you have no response to these questions).

Come on light

 

Shameless repost to get lightgigantic's attention.

Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

You observe something interesting. You then make a guess as to what it might be or what's causing it. Then you make some tests to confirm or deny your idea. If the tests support your idea, you've learned something potentially new about the universe. Bada boom.

How's yours work?

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

So, what's the simple epistemology that anyone can easily apply to percieve god? You know, like the simple epistemology scientists use to percieve nature?

Easy, right?

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

 

I think baum has expressed it pretty well in his thread.